Certainly. And it could be a horse box without a horse. If we could take everything out of our box, every particle, and try to get an absence of space time itself, what might happen at the point where we seem to achieve it, instead of the desired result, whoosh "big bang", we've created another set of dimensions, lots of somethingness, and become gods.

That's rather speculative.

In order for someone to have a proof that the universe is inexplicable, they need to show that it can never be explained without reference to prior cause.

My proof is like leading someone to the North Pole and asking them to go north. Then they suddenly realize they can't do that.

Or how about, your proof is like telling someone at the North Pole that they cannot go north and having them simply reply 'Duh'.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams

It may be that the "first thing" was caused by a quantum fluctuation operating from nothing.

I don't know what your definition of 'nothing' is.But if by nothing you mean non existence there would have been no quantum fluctuation.

Existence would be required for a quantum fluctuation to take place, as space and a vacuum is required.

Space and a vacuum only exist inside of the universe unless there is something that exists outside the universe. Which I have been told here many times that nothing exists outside the universe, as it was a self contained unit.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

My proof is like leading someone to the North Pole and asking them to go north. Then they suddenly realize they can't do that.

That's an explanation by analogy.

Your O.P. is actually a partial explanation of the universe, which goes like this:

First, you define what we mean by universe. It encompasses everything so it's the set of all things. Then you point out that, as such, no single thing or collection of things can be its prior cause.

You then point out that this would apply whether the universe popped into existence or always exists. That's as far as you go, because you mistakenly assume at this point that what your explanation has established is that the universe is inexplicable.

What you could have done is continued with the logical explanation after adding the observation that the universe does exist. Therefore, the universe does not require a prior cause. Therefore, any explanation of the existence of the universe doesn't have to refer to a prior cause now that we've reached the point in our explanation that it doesn't have one and doesn't need one. We can also conclude that the suggestion at the end of your O.P., that the universe always existed, is correct, because there cannot be anything (including time) prior to it, so there is no "prior".

Having followed this through, I'm claiming that the existence of the universe is explained by necessity. If there's no possible alternative, then it has to exist. So, do you understand why Dr. Adequate and I are discussing whether or not pure nothingness can be regarded as "possible"? Because the O.P. definition of the universe encompasses everything, pure nothingness is the only conceivable alternative.

That's where a discussion on whether or not the universe can be explained inevitably leads.

I propose that there's always somewhere and always something and that there's no such thing as "before time".

You're probably misunderstanding the O.P. It allows for a first thing and allows it to be your god, but merely points out that a first thing can't have a prior cause (obviously) and therefore can't be explained by one (obviously). Read "universe" in the O.P. as meaning "everything" including all gods.

Having followed this through, I'm claiming that the existence of the universe is explained by necessity. If there's no possible alternative, then it has to exist.

All the hubbub over the term "explain" is just quibbling. My proof is logical and useful. However, your assertion that the universe is explained by necessity is very interesting. I'm just not sure its logical. I'll have to think about it.

All the hubbub over the term "explain" is just quibbling. My proof is logical and useful. However, your assertion that the universe is explained by necessity is very interesting. I'm just not sure its logical. I'll have to think about it.

You would need to change the wording of your proof if you accept that anything could possibly be explained in any way other than by prior cause. That still leaves you with a proof that the universe cannot have a prior cause (and, logically, that it cannot be explained by a prior cause; and, logically, that it doesn't require a prior cause, 'cos it's here).

If you enjoy doing proofs, here's a good suggestion for a title:

"A Simplified Proof That No Thing or Set of Things Could Prevent The Universe From Existing".

Once we've defined the universe as including all things, it follows logically, doesn't it?

Having followed this through, I'm claiming that the existence of the universe is explained by necessity. If there's no possible alternative, then it has to exist. So, do you understand why Dr. Adequate and I are discussing whether or not pure nothingness can be regarded as "possible"? Because the O.P. definition of the universe encompasses everything, pure nothingness is the only conceivable alternative.

The universe does exist that is a fact.

Due to the fact that the universe is running out of usable energy it could not have existed eternally in the past.

Therefore the universe had to have a beginning to exist as it has not run out of usable energy yet.

At the present there is no scientific THEORY of how the universe began to exist. There are several guesses but there is nothing that reaches a consensus.

That means that the existence of the universe can not be explained by science.

The only way the existence of the universe can be explained so far is by the uncaused cause mentioned in the OP.

God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, I understand that the OP allows for a first uncaused thing, which would have to be an eternal entity.

Actually, the poster of the OP denies that possibility. That is one of the complaints about the OP.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams